Goldsborough v. Hewitt

1910 OK 217, 110 P. 906, 26 Okla. 859, 1910 Okla. LEXIS 154
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
DecidedJuly 12, 1910
Docket2129
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 1910 OK 217 (Goldsborough v. Hewitt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Goldsborough v. Hewitt, 1910 OK 217, 110 P. 906, 26 Okla. 859, 1910 Okla. LEXIS 154 (Okla. 1910).

Opinion

*860 TURNER, Vice Chief Justice.

Since handing down the opinion and rendering judgment in this cause (Goldsborough et al. v. Hewitt, 23 Okla. 66, 99 Pac. 907), the death of Robert Hewitt," defendant in error, has been suggested to this court for the first time and proved to have occurred between the submission and opinion herein, to wit, August 13, 1908. While the fact of said death between said submission and decision does not impair the validity of said judgment, in order to preserve all rights thereunder, said judgment is hereby set aside, said opinion and mandate recalled, and the clerk of this court directed to refile said opinion and enter the judgment of this court in said cause nunc pro tunc as of the date when said cause was submitted. Bell v. Bell, 181 U. S. 179, 21 Sup. Ct. 551, 45 L. Ed. 804; Powe v. McLeod & Co., 76 Ala. 418; Danforth v. Danforth, 111 Ill. 236; Lockenour v. Sides et al., 57 Ind. 360, 26 Am. Rep. 58; Holloway v. Galliac, 49 Cal. 149.

It further appearing to the court that plaintiff in error does not desire a revivor against the administrator and heirs of said Hewitt, and has withdrawn in this court all claim for use and occupation of the premises recovered and desires only to be possessed of his homestead, the sole remaining subject of litigation herein has abated and is at an end. It is therefore ordered that before refiling said opinion the same be corrected in so far that this cause be remanded;, not for a new trial, but with directions to the trial court to set aside the deed complained of, put plaintiff in possession of his homestead by proper process, and quiet his title thereto as prayed.

DUNN, C. J., and KANE and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur; HAYES, J., not participating.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Davis v. Ball
1939 OK 482 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1939)
House v. Gragg
1934 OK 601 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1934)
Spencer v. Hamilton
1932 OK 87 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1932)
Ingram v. United States
5 F.2d 940 (Eighth Circuit, 1925)
Owens v. Moraine
1925 OK 19 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1925)
Kaw Boiler Works v. Frymyer
1924 OK 1151 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1924)
McKee v. Thornton
1921 OK 303 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1921)
Town of Jefferson v. Hicks
1912 OK 578 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1912)
Hewitt v. Goldsborough
1911 OK 390 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1911)
Boyes v. Masters
1911 OK 77 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1911)
State Ex Rel. Goldsborough v. Huston
1910 OK 255 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1910)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1910 OK 217, 110 P. 906, 26 Okla. 859, 1910 Okla. LEXIS 154, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goldsborough-v-hewitt-okla-1910.